Working Group Self-Assessment Questionnaire

Notes to SCI Members and Other Reviewers:

In this Draft v3 version of the questionnaire, I made the following substantive changes:

  1. The "Expertise" question (Section II) was modified in an attempt to address Ron's concern expressed on the last SCI conference call (2 July); and
  2. In Section V, I substituted "Engagement" for "Participation" and changed the wording of the first question to address Wolf-Ulrich's feedback entered as a comment to Draft v2.
  3. Added a new disclaimer in the note just before Section II to explain how to approach the challenge of assigning individual ratings to complex dimensions.
  4. I elected to break out the Personal Dimensions and Demographics into two distinct sections. The table headings simply did not apply correctly to the Demographics questions. 
  5. Added a third question to the Personal Dimensions which I labeled "Willingness-to-Serve" for want of a better noun. This question seeks to understand whether the WG experience influences one's propensity to serve again in the future assuming all other conditions (e.g., topic, need/fit, availability) are favorable. In other words, are we systematically building or eroding volunteer capacity?

Welcome and Introduction

Thank you for accepting the invitation to complete this questionnaire concerning your experiences with the __________________________ Working Group (WG). Your Chartering Organization (CO) and other ICANN stakeholders are keenly interested in learning about the effectiveness of its chartered teams by asking participants for their assessments, perspectives, and insights concerning various aspects of the Working Group's operations, norms, logistics, decision-making, and outputs. The results of your feedback will be used to identify improvement areas in the guidelines, tools, methods, templates, and procedures applicable to Working Groups. Summary reports will be shared not only with your Working Group, but the larger GNSO stakeholder community. 

If you have any questions or concerns about this self-assessment instrument, please send an email to: ___________________________ and we will try to address them promptly. 

This questionnaire is organized into six short sections and should take approximately _____ minutes to complete. Although most of the questions will ask you for an effectiveness rating (1-7 Scale), there will be an opportunity within each major section to add free-form text comments. You are encouraged to provide supplementary explanations or other supporting information that will help the Chartering Organization understand and interpret your input. If there is any individual question for which you do not wish to provide a rating, a SKIP option is available. 

I. Personal Identifying Information (Required)

Anonymity Provision: Although this assessment instrument is requesting personal identifying information, it is being done ONLY as a preventive measure to ensure that (a) all WG Members' input has been received and (b) any spurious or duplicate entries do not undermine or contaminate the value of the feedback to the Chartering Organization. Please be assured that: (1) your individual responses will not be accessible by anyone other than the ICANN Staff Administrator; and (2) they will not be disclosed or published in a way that could be matched to your identity without your express permission. 

Name: 
Email: 
Organization:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Registry Stakeholder Group
    • Registrar Statkeholder Group
    • Business Constituency
    • Intellectual Property Constituency
    • Internet Services Provider Constituency
    • Non-Commercial Users Constituency
    • Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
    • At-Large/ALAC
    • Other ICANN SO/AC
    • Representing Self
    • Other (please describe): _____________________
Working Group Role:

Please select the most descriptive role that you fulfilled on the WG from the drop-down list:

    • Leader (Chair, Co-Chair, Vice-Chair, Other Officer)
    • Contributing Member
    • Background Contributor
    • Liaison
    • Observer
    • Advisor/Consultant
    • Support (e.g., secretary, technical, administrative)
    • Other (please describe): _____________________

In the next four sections (II-V), you will be asked to rate the EFFECTIVENESS of each dimension; the scale interpretation will be provided appropriate to each element.

Your Chartering Organization (CO) understands that, when answering survey questions, it may seem challenging to assign a single numerical rating to any team dimension in which a broad spectrum of experiences occurred. You are asked to think about the overall effort and provide the most honest and accurate representation in your best judgment. Learning and process improvement are the goals and there are no right or wrong answers. Recognizing that there may be important dynamics that simply cannot be captured in a single rating, you are encouraged to use the free-form comment box within each major section to provide supplementary explanations that will help the CO understand and interpret your feedback.

II. Inputs ...includes the charter/mission, team members, tools, and resources.

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Inputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Charter/Mission of the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means confusing, vague, ill-structured, unbounded, unrealistic (e.g., time, constraints), unachievable; and
7-Highly Effective means understandable, clear, well-structured, bounded, realistic (e.g., time, constraints), achievable

1234567SKIP

The Expertise of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means that, collectively, team members did not possess an appropriate level of knowledge/skill to fulfill the mission; and
7-Highly Effective means that team members, collectively, were appropriately knowledgeable and skilled to accomplish the mission

1234567SKIP

The Representativeness of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means narrow, skewed, selective, unbalanced; and
7-Highly Effective means broad, diverse, balanced

1234567SKIP

The external Human Resources (e.g., briefings, experts, consultants, liaisons) provided to the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Technical Resources (e.g., systems, tools, platforms, templates) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means difficult, challenging, clumsy, awkward, tedious, slow, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means easy, straightforward, clear, efficient, fast, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP

The Administrative Resources (e.g., support, guidelines, documentation) provided to and utilized by the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inappropriate, inadequate, untimely, not helpful/useful; and
7-Highly Effective means appropriate, adequate, timely, helpful/useful 

1234567SKIP
Comments about the WG's Inputs: (Free-form Text Box)
III. Processes ...includes norms, operations, logistics, and decision-making.
Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Processes, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:
Assessment CategoryRating

The Participation climate within the WG where:
1-Highly Ineffective means inhospitable, unilateral, frustrating, unproductive; and
7-Highly Effective means inviting, inclusive, accepting, respectful, productive

1234567SKIP
The Behavior norm of WG members where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disruptive, argumentative, disrespectful, hostile, domineering; and
7-Highly Effective means accommodating, respectful, collaborative, consensus-building
1234567SKIP

The Decision-Making Methodology (e.g., consensus) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means broken, ignored, not observed, disrespected; and
7-Highly Effective means honored, followed, observed, respected

1234567SKIP

The Session/Meeting Planning (e.g., agendas) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means disorganized, haphazard, unstructured, untimely notice; and
7-Highly Effective means organized, disciplined, structured, timely notice

1234567SKIP
Comments about the WG's Processes:(Free-form Text Box)
IV. Products and Outputs

Thinking about the overall EFFECTIVENESS of the Working Group's Products and Outputs, how would you rate each of the following elements on a scale where 1=Highly Ineffective and 7=Highly Effective:

Assessment CategoryRating

The Working Group's primary Mission where:
1-Highly Ineffective means not achieved, fulfilled, and/or accomplished per the Charter; and
7-Highly Effective means completely achieved, fulfilled, and/or accomplished as directed

1234567SKIP
The Quality of the WG's outputs (a.k.a. deliverables) where:
1-Highly Ineffective means incomplete, inadequate, materially deficient/flawed, unsupported; and
7-Highly Effective means complete, thorough, exhaustive, reasoned, supported
1234567SKIP
Comments about the WG's Products and Outputs:(Free-form Text Box)
V. Personal Dimensions

As a result of having invested significant time and effort volunteering on a Working Group, your Chartering Organization is interested to learn about your own personal Engagement, Fulfillment, and Willingness-to-Serve in the future.

Assessment CategoryRating

My personal Engagement in helping the WG accomplish its mission:
1-Participated Never; and
7-Participated Extensively

1234567SKIP

My personal Fulfillment considering the time, energy, and work efforts I contributed to this WG:
1-Highly Unrewarding; and
7-Highly Rewarding

1234567SKIP

Assuming all other conditions are suitable (e.g., subject, interest, need, fit, availability), I assess my personal Willingness-to-Serve on a future ICANN Working Group as:
1-Extremely Unreceptive; and
7-Extremely Receptive

1234567SKIP
Comments about Personal Dimensions:  (Free-form Text Box)
VI. Demographics

Your Chartering Organization has a few final questions that will assist in framing your experience with this Working Group. 

How did you learn about the WG?

Please select one from the drop-down list:

  • I was informed or invited by my SG/C or ICANN-affiliated organization
  • I was contacted by an ICANN Staff member
  • I was contacted by an individual seeking to recruit volunteers for the WG (e.g., GNSO Councilor, interim Chair)
  • I learned about the WG through one of ICANN's websites (or Wikis)
  • I learned about the WG from another organization not directly associated with ICANN
  • A professional colleague or associate informed me about the WG
  • Other (please describe): _________________________________
Approximately how long have you been involved with ICANN:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 1 year
    • 1 - 2 years
    • 2 - 4 years
    • 4 - 6 years
    • 6 - 8 years
    • More than 8 years
Considering the most recent twelve months, on average, approximately how many hours per week do you spend on ICANN-related activities:

Please select one from the drop-down list:

    • Less than 10 hours
    • 10 - 20 hours
    • 20 - 40 hours
    • 40 - 60 hours
    • 60 - 80 hours
    • More than 80 hours
Comments about Demographics: (Free-form Text Box)
Additional Comments:
(Please feel free to provide any additional feedback about your Working Group experience,
this Self-Assessment, or any other matter not covered elsewhere in this questionnaire)		(Free-form Text Box)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK! 

***END***


  • No labels